Gun Fanatics Using Trojan Horses to Keep Their Deadly Toys

Universal background screening will stop the mass shootings,
scream the gun owners. More mental health checks will weed out the killers from the peaceful
among us, say the paid-for politicians. Guns don’t kill people - people kill people,
yell the gun fanatics. The truth is: THEY ARE ALL LIEING! These are all Trojan
Horses that have been constructed by gun lovers, their supporters, and the politicians that they
have bought!

Still, what the gun-crazies in America lobby for are more and deadlier
guns on the streets of America. Arm the teachers, they offer up as a solution.
Give every good person a gun to defend himself from the bad people, they tell us.
They hand out the totally unsubstantiated canard that, arming every American citizen will
put an end to gun violence, because then, the upright and honest gun owner will be able to
defend themselves by killing the armed and despicable criminals among us. The fact is,
that only in a statistically slim percentage of cases, do armed civilians actually help
thwart some sort of crime or act of violence.[1] What these righteous firearms proponents won’t tell you is that,
basically no armed citizen has ever stopped a mass shooting! Only our
armed law enforcement officers have sometimes succeeded in ending a mass shooting.
“A 2012 study by Mother Jones found that none of the 62 mass
shootings from the preceding three decades were stopped by an armed citizen with a gun.”
(Ref. 1)

If you think more aggressive background checks will end mass shootings,
you are totally naïve. Background checks would not have prevented a single mass public shooter
in recent history from obtaining firearms. Would-be mass public shooters rarely have
disqualifying criminal or mental health histories—meaning, they often can and do pass
background checks when legally purchasing their firearms. With respect to the Dayton,
Ohio gunman who killed nine and wounded more
than two dozen others in August of 2019, “Police have said there was nothing in {the
gunman’s} background to prevent him from buying a gun.” (Ref. 2)

Another report on armed civilians saving lives at a mass shooting is
as follows. “In the wake of the unthinkable massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, pro-gun ideologues
are once again calling for ordinary citizens to arm themselves as a solution to mass shootings.
If only the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School had possessed a M-4 assault rifle she
could’ve stopped the killer, they say. This latest twist on a long-running argument isn’t just
absurd on its face; there is no evidence to support it. [Emphasis mine]
As . . . reported recently in {an} in-depth investigation, not one of 62 mass shootings
in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way. More broadly, attempts
by armed civilians to intervene in shooting rampages are rare—and are successful even more
rarely. (Two people who tried it in recent years were gravely wounded or killed.) And law
enforcement overwhelmingly hates the idea of armed citizens getting involved.
[Emphasis mine]
“Those pesky facts haven’t stopped the ‘arm America more!’ crowd
from pressing the argument with alleged examples of successful armed interventions. The
problem is, the few examples they keep using—in which they depict plain old folks acting
heroically and with definitive results—fall apart under scrutiny. . . .”
(Ref. 3) While written in 2012, the facts, some seven
years later, remain unchanged. FACT: Good people with guns haven’t been able to
put end to mass shootings in America. But, bad people with guns have committed all
the mass shootings here in America.

“While anecdotal evidence might make for a compelling public
relations, and there are indeed some circumstances where gun ownership saves someone's
life, the statistics overall are very clear: more guns equals more gun deaths. Which is
precisely why so many other countries throughout the world, admittedly unburdened by the
2nd Amendment, have taken legislative action to regulate and control them.”
(Ref. 1)

More and Stricter Gun Control Laws

The cry has gone out: more and stricter gun control laws!
In response, the gun lovers of America have uncovered the holy grail that will end gun
violence in America - background checks and red flag laws. Even President Trump
is getting in on the action.

- Red Flag Laws -

Unfortunately, red flag laws are bad ideas. They are
designed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. Sure, no one wants a mentally
ill person to have guns, but who is to determine who is mentally ill? What
would be the legal definition of mental illness? Realistically, Most mentally ill individuals
are not — and will never become — violent, especially when they are receiving proper treatment.

As a result of the Texas and Ohio shootings, red flag laws and
universal background checks have become the rage. The argument goes: If we want to stop mass
shootings, take the guns away from nut cakes before they start shooting everyone. Simple,
eh?

But there are lots of problems with these overly simplistic
solutions. In the case of a red flag law, there are some people who completely freak out
over guns and can overreact to the mere existence of a firearm in another person’s hands.
There are others who may maliciously use red flag laws against people they don’t like.
With a red flag law, all it would take would be for someone to convince a judge that
another person posed a threat, despite little evidence to back up that charge. To be
effective, a red flag law would have to have a very low of a burden of proof, and that’s
a glaring fault with such a law. Simply accusing someone of being a threat could be enough
to deprive an individual of his civil rights. A law with a very low burden of proof could
well overwhelm our court system with a veritable flood of cases stemming from unsubstantiated
charges. That’s something we need to keep in mind when considering the legality and
effectiveness of a red flag law. Will it solve the problem? I seriously doubt it! And
I believe that such a red flag law would create a much greater problem than the one it
is supposed to solve. Our lawmakers and the public need to keep this in mind and, instead,
focus on the only realistic solution – no guns!

“ ‘Red flag’ laws are now all the rage in the Beltway as the magic
pill to prevent homicidal maniacs from wreaking havoc on the nation. Even President Trump has
endorsed the idea of preemptively confiscating people’s firearms if they are deemed a ‘threat’.
“But if you want to know how this {law} would work in practice,
let me remind you of how Veterans Affairs
recklessly red-flags ‘disruptive’ citizens without due process, transparency or accountability
in the name of ‘safety.’ Government bureaucrats routinely deprive our nation’s heroes of
medical treatment based on arbitrary definitions of who and what constitutes a mental
health menace.
“Under the VA policy on ‘patient record flags', federal bureaucrats
can classify vets as ‘threats’ based on assessments of their ‘difficult,’ ‘annoying’ and
‘noncompliant’ behavior. The VA manual says the flags ‘are used to alert Veterans Health
Administration medical staff and employees of patients whose behavior and characteristics
may pose a threat either to their safety, the safety of other patients, or compromise the
delivery of quality health care.’
“What a crock. It’s precisely because so many vets receive inferior
care from the feds that they have been forced to raise their voices. Have we all forgotten
the 40 veterans who perished at the Phoenix, Ariz., VA, which relegated patients to a
bureaucratic black hole through secret waiting lists? Among examples of patients’ behavior
referred to the red-flaggers in the VA’s ‘Disruptive Behavior Committees’: venting
‘frustration about VA services and/or wait times, threatening lawsuits or to have people
fired, and frequent unwarranted visits to the emergency department or telephone calls to
facility staff.’
“{A Disabled} Air Force veteran and veterans advocate/attorney . . .
has exposed the Soviet-style targeting of veterans flagged for exercising their First Amendment
rights or threatening to sue the VA over neglectful care or for simply being too ‘expensive.’
He calls it ‘straight out of a totalitarian regime.’ In January 2018, a VA Office
of Inspector General report found that large numbers of flagged veterans were being left in
the dark about being placed on dangerous patient lists — with no recourse to remove phony
flags or appeal in any meaningful way. [Emphasis mine]
“There are undoubtedly patients in the system who may pose real threats.
But the problem with the process is that it is secret. The review process is done in secret
and the veteran will not know who sat on the committee or what the evidence presented was prior
to the decision. Only after the decision is made are veterans informed of the outcome and given
a chance to appeal the vague allegations. That seems like a due process violation {if there
ever was one.}
“{An Army veteran from} Virginia {said} recently that he was a
flagged veteran. ‘My grave sin?’ {he said}. ‘I tried to report the abuse of a deaf, infirm,
WWII veteran. He was approximately 95 years of age. A male nurse stood behind his waiting
room chair and shouted down at the top of his head, ‘Hello! Hello! Hello! If you can hear
me, you can come in now!’
“{He} describes how the elderly vet could not hear this, and the
nurse went through three iterations, while giggling and looking at the wait-room personnel
as if we were a comedy club audience. It was one of the sickest displays I’ve ever seen.’
“For blowing the whistle on VA elder abuse, he was banned from all
satellite clinics and only granted access to one main facility. VA flaggers can ‘manufacture
tone, the content of what you’re saying, and will even ascribe actions to you that you did
not perform.’
“ ‘The potential ‘red flag’ laws concern me deeply,’ {said the
veterans advocate/attorney} ‘Why any citizen would think it wise to let the government
screw such handles to our backs, to threaten and wag us any which way, is beyond my
understanding. However, I fully understand why politicians want it.’ “
[Emphasis mine] (Ref. 4)

A red flag law is just another useless substitute for the real
solution to the problem of gun violence in America. It keeps the dogs at bay and it keeps
naïve voters off the politicians' backs. It gives the politicians and their donors from
the NRA the appearance of doing something useful when, in reality, they are allowing
the problem to fester and to worsen.

- Universal Background Checks -

The other part of more and stricter gun control laws!
that is being bandied about is universal background checks, and this too is a flawed
proposal. Take note, that in the case of the Parkland, Florida shooting, the perpetrator
was on the FBI’s radar but that didn’t stop the massacre. The two shooters in El Paso and
Dayton both passed background checks because they had no prior records, so a universal
background check law would not have stopped the massacres. We need to recognize what these
two so-called solutions to mass shootings – universal background checks and red flag
laws – are. They are diversionary tactics intended to distract honest people from
insisting on the only practical solution – getting guns off the streets of
America.

UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS WILL NOT STOP THE MASS
SHOOTINGS. The NRA knows this, Donald Trump knows this, and all intelligent
Americans know this. Look back at all the mass shootings in recent decades and tell me
how many of them would have been prevented by background checks. VERY FEW TO
NONE! Universal background checks might weed out a miniscule few mass shooters,
but it most definitely won't put an end to the problem.

The call for universal background checks is simply another move
by the unthinking public, NRA-beholden politicians, gun-lovers and Donald Trump to implement
a feel-good move that will have little-to-no impact on gun violence in America.
BUT, the disingenuous gun owners and their supporters want to appear
to be taking action to stop the mass shootings while actually doing nothing of real
significance to end the killings and maiming. Heaven forbid, anyone should have to give
up their lethal toys!

- Where Does the President Stand? -

President Donald Trump is a member of the National Rifle Association
(NRA) even if he isn’t a card-carrying member and doesn’t pay membership dues. Along with the
NRA, President Trump has consistently opposed any meaningful action to restrict the use of
guns to commit mass murders in these United states and he is once more colluding with the
NRA to guarantee that, in the wake of the recent mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and
Dayton, Ohio, no effective action will be taken.

Immediately, following the public uproar after the El Paso and
Dayton shootings, “{The} National Rifle Association CEO . . . and President Trump have
spoken, a senior administration official confirmed to CBS News. The White House has not
disclosed what the two spoke about during the phone call.
“In the wake of the mass shootings in Ohio and Texas,
the president called on Congress to pass legislation on background checks, which the
NRA has long opposed and lobbied against. Mr. Trump has not always
supported strengthening background check laws, threatening to veto such legislation
earlier this year. [Emphasis mine] The president has also spoken with West
Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, who said the two discussed the NRA's concerns
about a background check bill, according to a spokesperson for the senator.
“Manchin said the president told him he wants to see
legislation before September, and the West Virginia senator told Mr. Trump he needs
to be outspoken in his support for the background checks bill in order to secure
Republican support.” (Ref. 5)

The president has reversed himself so many times on the issue of
universal background checks that nost Americans are dizzy. Why does the President
continue to flip-flop on the background check issue?
Why would he oppose it in the first place? Did he oppose universal background checks
because the NRA opposes it? Is he reversing direction because of the upcoming 2020
election? Is Donald Trump colluding with the NRA to scuttle any meaningful action to
stop mass shootings? Will President Trump and members of Congress take any effective
steps to end the gun violence in these United States or will they continue to shed
crocodile tears over the victims and simply express their condolences to the victims
and their families?

The NRA and Donald Trump Collude

“The NRA issued a statement expressing ‘deepest sympathies’
after the Ohio and Texas shootings, insisting the group would ‘work in good faith to
pursue real solutions that protect us all from people who commit these horrific acts.’
But late Thursday, {the NRA CEO} issued a statement saying the NRA ‘opposes any legislation
that unfairly infringes upon the rights of law-abiding citizens,’ adding, ‘The inconvenient
truth is this: the proposals being discussed by many would not have prevented the horrific
tragedies in El Paso and Dayton.’
“{the NRA CEO} continued, ‘The NRA will work in good faith to
pursue real solutions to the epidemic of violence in America. But many proposals are
nothing more than 'soundbite solutions' – which fail to address the root of the problem,
confront criminal behavior, or make our communities safer.’ “(Ref. 5)
While, as always, not offering a realistic answer to the mass
killings, the NRA did, at least, expose the universal background check proposal
as nothing but useless.

It’s interesting to note that the “NRA was a substantial
financial backer of Mr. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, and Mr. Trump has spoken
multiple times at NRA gatherings, praising the group's defense of the Second
Amendment and pledging that Americans' rights to carry firearms will always be protected
under his presidency.
" ‘Your Second Amendment rights are under siege, but they will
never, ever be under siege as long as I'm your president,’ Mr. Trump said in a speech to
the NRA last year. After the February 2018 Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School shooting,
however, the president mocked fellow Republicans for being ‘petrified’ of the NRA,
claiming he doesn't need to cave to the group's demands. Back then, the president also
said at the time that he supported expanded background checks, although he did not push
the effort. The Trump administration did ban bump stocks, a move that received significant
pushback from the gun lobby.” (Ref. 5)

Mr. Trump’s pledge that “Your Second Amendment rights are
under siege, but they will never, ever be under siege as long as I'm your president”
effectively means that, as long as he is president, there will be no meaningful action
taken to end mass shootings. As I’ve written before, the only way to put an
end to gun violence in America is to once-and-for-all get rid of the guns. To do this,
the Second Amendment must first and foremost be repealed.

The Only Meaningful Solution

I’ve written about the largely uncontrolled gun violence in
America before. And, with each more-frequent mass shooting that has taken place, my
thinking on how to put an end to the killings and injuries has both clarified and hardened.
America is gun crazy. There are an estimated 400 million privately owned firearms in the
United States, with somewhere between one-third and one-half of American households
owning at least one gun. That's about 50 million more guns than the total population
of these United States - men, women and children. I started addressing this
problem in 2017, by writing, “Today, in the
21st century, the time has long since passed for repealing the outdated and irrelevant
Second Amendment to the constitution and for instituting meaningful federal and state
laws to put an end to the escalation of gun crimes in the United States.”
(Ref. 6)

After the Parkland High School shootings in Florida in 2018,
I wrote:

“Where do we start to end gun violence and mass shootings in
America? We start by repealing the second amendment to the Constitution!
Every time there is an attempt to institute meaningful gun control legislation and to end
or, at least, to reduce the number of gun deaths, injuries and mass shootings, the gun owners,
the gun lobby, and the plain gun nuts invoke the 2nd amendment, as if it was some law
engraved on tablets of stone that was handed down from God and which is immutable,
sacred and unchangeable. It’s time to refute such argument! The 2nd amendment is no
such thing! Is is simply an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
It was not even the first amendment to the Constitution and, let’s remember that the U.S.
Constitution was not even the first set of rules to govern the newly independent Thirteen
Colonies – the Articles of Confederation were! Also, let’s not lose sight of the fact
that the Constitution was designed to be amended, i.e., changed, and that amendments to
the Constitution can and have been repealed.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not sacred and it is
not sacrosanct – it can be changed and it can be repealed! The time has now arrived
when it must be repealed!” (Ref. 7)

Again in 2018, I noted the passivity of our legislators, {our
president,} and gun-rights activists in tackling the epidemic of mass shootings by stating:
“After a mass shooting, politicians offer condolences and prayers, observe moments of
silence and order flags flown at half-staff. But afterward, legislative efforts are deferred
and ultimately derailed. Invariably, the refrain is: not now, later; There will be a time
and place for a political debate, but not now. Now is the time for us to mourn and unite
as a country. And the time for political debate and meaningful action never comes. It’s
always the same old story – now is not the time, later. When it comes to guns,
it’s business as usual!
“Will the American public continue to avoid taking the first
hard step toward reversing this trend? Or, will the American public finally stand up and
demand that their elected representatives institute meaningful, effective and innovative
legislation to reverse the trend of gun violence in the United States? Will the American
public demand the repeal of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, followed by the
enactment of radical and restrictive gun control laws that will put an end to these
senseless killings? When it comes to gun violence, will the American public finally
demand an end to the business as usual attitude of its elected
officials? Isn’t now finally the right time?”
(Ref. 8)

Most unfortunately, the need to once again address the issue
of gun violence arose following the synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh later in 2018.
I said:

“To those mealy-mouthed politicians who are beholden
to the NRA and the gun fanatics throughout America, guns are never the problem, now is
not the time to take really meaningful action, and putting more guns on the street by
enlisting a new army of armed guards everywhere is the solution. To these gun
advocates, their solution is a return to the wild west of the 19th century, where every
man totes a six-gun on his hip. To these gun lovers, their solution is to lock up every
venue in the United States where more than a dozen people congregate and place an armed
guard inside to ward off any potential attackers. Better yet, these American patriots
would have the rest of us cower in homes to avoid being shot by some gun-wielding crazy,
while they cavort around with their beloved guns shouting that guns are not the
problem. That is not the America in which I want to live!
“Repealing the Second Amendment and enacting laws to get rid
of the weapons on the streets of America are the first two necessary steps to ending the
senseless slaughtering of Americans with firearms. The remaining step is the
passage of laws to severely punish all illegal activity associated with the use,
possession or trafficking of guns.” (Ref. 9)

And then at the beginning of this year, I once again took up
the worsening problem of shootings in America when I wrote: “Another year has passed
since the mass shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland,
Florida. In the intervening 12 months, what have we here in America done in response
to that tragedy? What have we accomplished in the struggle to end gun violence
in America? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! For shame, America!- - -
“Unless and until America decides that getting guns off
its street and out of the hands of those who would do us harm supersedes gunowners’
perceived 'right to own a gun' and unless and until America simply outlaws their
possession, the spate of gun deaths in America will continue to grow. Until the gun
fanatics realize that sometimes citizens must give up certain perceived rights in
order to benefit society as a whole, the epidemic of mass shootings will continue.
Unless and until our politicians stop spouting their blather and rhetoric and get
serious about ending gun violence, the death toll from shootings will continue to
spiral upward. - - -
“America, for Shame! We are long on words
and short on actions. We sympathize, we mourn, we remember and we make unfulfilled
promises – but still, we do nothing! For shame, America!”
“Are you fed up with nothing being done to end gun violence
in America? Will you do something to end the madness or will you stay with those who talk
a lot, but do nothing? If you are willing to take action, contact your representatives
and senators and tell them you won’t support them, nor vote for them if they won’t
push to:

repeal the second amendment to the Constitution,

ban the possession of all guns except by law enforcement, the military and those
who need guns to protect the public, and

“If there is a national emergency in America today, it is an
emergency created by gun violence. In America, people use guns to kill over 15,000 people
a year, of which, some 3,500 are young people. Guns injure another 28,000 each year.
This is the real national emergency that cries out for immediate and decisive action on
the part of our national leaders.
“Americans, it's time to take action! Find, support and
vote candidates into office who will actually do what needs to be done!”
(Ref. 10)

Shortly afterward, I wrote one more article about gun control.
In it, I stated the following:

“It’s now 10 years since the Columbine shootings. In the
intervening 10 years, what have we here in America done in response to that tragedy?
What have we accomplished in the struggle to end gun violence in America?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
It’s now nearly 7 years since the Sandy Hook Elementary
School massacre. In the intervening 6 plus years, what have we here in America done
in response to that tragedy? What have we accomplished in the struggle to end gun
violence in America? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
“It’s now nearly 3 years since 49 were killed in the Orlando
nightclub massacre. In the intervening 3 years, what have we here in America done in
response to that tragedy? What have we accomplished in the struggle to end gun
violence in America? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
“It’s now 1-1/2 years since 58 were killed in the Las Vegas
Strip massacre. In the intervening 18 months, what have we here in America done in
response to that tragedy? What have we accomplished in the struggle to end gun violence
in America? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
“It’s now a full year since the mass shooting at the Marjory
Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. In the intervening 12 months, what
have we here in America done in response to that tragedy? What have we accomplished
in the struggle to end gun violence in America? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
” It’s now 11 months since the mass shooting at the Santa
Fe High School shooting. In the intervening 11 months, what have we here in America
done in response to that tragedy? What have we accomplished in the struggle to end
gun violence in America? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
“It’s now 6 months since 11 were killed in the Tree of Life
Synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh. In the intervening 6 months, what have we here in
America done in response to that tragedy? What have we accomplished in the struggle
to end gun violence in America? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
“It’s now 1 month since 50 Muslim worshipers were murdered
in two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. Within 1 week, what was done in that
country in response to the tragedy? What have the New Zealanders done to prevent
more gun violence in their nation? NEW ZEALAND BANNED ASSAULT WEAPONS!
NEW ZEALAND SHARPLY RESTRICTED ACCESS TO ‘VIRTUALLY ALL’ SUCH WEAPONS BY RECLASSIFYING
THEM TO REQUIRE A POLICE PERMIT — WHICH ‘WILL BE DENIED.’ ” (Ref. 11)

As much as we’d like to be able to sort the population into
those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those
who surely will not, the unfortunate fact is that we are unable to accomplish that feat
of legerdemain. Background checks will never work and neither will “red flag” laws. What
such laws would do would be to turn America into an authoritarian disaster, much the
same as the Soviet Union was during the heyday of Stalin. Everyone spied on his
neighbor and everyone was the subject of intrusive “background checks” to verify
one’s party loyalty. Such invasive government interference would grossly violate our
civil liberties, almost certainly stigmatize the mentally ill, and potentially subject
all us to investigations instituted by unsubstantiated charges made by anyone with a
bone to pick with us.

When our mealy-mouthed politicians talk about
“tough gun control” they tend to mean bans on “certain weapons” and “closing
loopholes” in our totally ineffective laws. Neither action will have any meaningful
consequences. Even these ineffective actions typically include hedges,
disclaimers and their own loopholes, such as: this only applies to “certain kinds of
weapons” or “certain kinds of ammunition”. They are nothing but feel-good
distractions designed to keep lethal weapons in the hands of gun-lovers and, unfortunately,
also in the hands of mass murderers and criminals.

This is said, “not to win some sort of ideological purity
contest, but because banning guns urgently needs to become a rhetorical and conceptual
possibility. The national conversation needs to shift from one extreme — an acceptance,
ranging from complacent to enthusiastic, of an individual right to own guns — to another,
which requires people who are not politicians to speak their minds. And this will only
happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that guns are terrible speak out.
“. . . {There are} two issues: a readiness to accept the
Second Amendment as a refutation, and a reluctance to impose ‘elite’ culture on parts
of the country where guns are popular. (There are other reasons as well, not least a
fear of getting shot.) And there’s the extent to which it’s just so ingrained that
banning guns is impossible, legislatively and pragmatically, which dramatically weakens
the anti-gun position.
“The first issue shouldn’t be so complicated. It doesn’t take
specialized expertise in constitutional law to understand that current U.S. gun law gets
its parameters from Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment. But it’s right
there in the First Amendment that we don’t have to simply nod along with what follows.
That the Second Amendment has been liberally interpreted doesn’t prevent any of us from
saying it’s been misinterpreted, or that it should be repealed.
[Emphasis mine] - - -
“{On the ban all guns} side of things, there’s far too much timidity.
What’s needed to stop all gun violence is a {very} vocal ban guns contingent.
[Emphasis mine] Getting bogged down in discussions of what’s feasible keeps what needs to happen —
no more guns — from entering the realm of possibility. Public opinion needs to shift.
The no-guns stance needs to be an identifiable place on the spectrum, embraced unapologetically. . .”
(Ref. 12) The ban guns contingent needs to be
vociferous, insistent, and relentless.

After each seemingly more-frequent mass shooting, the magic words
come forth - more and stricter gun control laws! And just as in the past, the phrase
more and stricter gun control laws! is empty because it can mean whatever the person
spouting the phrase wants it to mean. To the gun fanatic, it means a toothless law that allows
him to keep and shoot his weapons. To the naïve, it is Nirvana – an end to gun violence –
even though it is no such thing.

The words, More and stricter gun control laws! are
nothing but Trojan Horses that have been constructed by gun lovers, their supporters, and
the politicians that they have bought!